Top 5 benefits of Modern classic 'Hinkley' Triumphs over old 'Meriden' Triumph's : 1) They have brakes that actually work! 2) Don't lose nuts and screws along the road due to the vibration. 3) Don't need their spark-plugs removed and cleaned after every short commute. 4) Don't "mark their territory", ie. leak oil all over the street. 5) Have decent chassis and handling, no need to butcher your prized Norton for its 'featherbed' frame.
I've had 3 old Bonnevilles and loved every one of them. They do have their downsides though. I was out one night and my zener diode blew. The excess voltage caused every light bulb large and small to blow out, headlight, tail light, the little bulbs in the instruments. Fortunately I wasn't far from home. I've owned bikes that shifted on opposite sides and scared the hell out of myself thinking I was hanging a big downshift and stomped on the brake. At least they were the old drum brakes so it wasn't nearly as dramatic as it could have been. Drum brakes, carburetors and points ignition are all simpler for the home mechanic to work on. I'm glad to see how much you appreciate these old machines. Enjoy.
I was out one night on a '72 Norton Commando and the light switch fell apart. I had to stop, open the head light shell, cut the wires off the switch and twist them together to get the lights back on to get home.
Others have already pointed out that the air/oil-cooled Hinckley Bonnies (2001-2016) had a 360 crank. Also, there were a variety of colorful ones available, especially T100s with two tone paint, not just black. As for the size/weight issue, the market has changed since the ‘60s. The old Triumphs were built for short distance rides on narrow, winding British roads. The new ones are aimed at a worldwide market, with the expectation that buyers will be riding them on bigger roads. A larger motor is required to meet modern standards (emissions, reliability, etc), which in turn requires a stouter frame, heavier duty suspension, etc - and a sturdier, heftier bike is also more stable and controlled on larger roads and highways. All street motorcycles have gotten larger, not just Triumphs. They’re still way lighter than most Harleys though…!
Compared to my T-120 1200 my 1982 T-140 is a gas hog. It has new Amal carbs and Tri-spark ignition but I do tend to give it the business because it’s fun. They’ll just never have the efficiency of fuel injection.
Hi Dave, the 1982 T140 had Amal Mk 2 concentrics which did indeed drink the juice - usually a rotten 45MPG (UK). With the Mk1 concentrics or the old monoblocs 60 MPG was the norm on the open road as I have proved time and again over a whole string of 650 and 750 twins. In 1978 I rode a 1969 TR6P from London down to Italy and back, matching my indicated MPH to the signposted KPH (getting busted in Italy for 103 in a 50 KPH zone) averaging 66 MPG. Modern bikes should do a whole lot better and, more importantly modern bikers should be demanding better. Why on earth do bikers put up with being ripped off all the time? We should be looking for - and demanding - 100MPG now.
The biggest improvement of the newer Triumphs is that they got rid of all the Lucas electrics. Even the carbs on the 2008 and earlier Bonnevilles were no longer made by Amal.
The 360 degree crank was on the oil cooled 790 and 865 Bonnevilles and Thruxtons (had both) the Scrambler, Speedmaster, America ect had 270 ... Then when the water cooled classics came out they all had 270 cranks
i really enjoyed this video but I wish you would have included some clips of the scrambler. its rather irrelevant but i just bought a 2016 scrambler and absolutely love it and wouldnt mind seeing more content including that bike. its basically a bonneville with high pipes. but if you add some knobbies to it, some lifted handle bars... it really gives it an even cooler look. it is definitely too heavy to be a trail bike but i still take it out and get squirly with it at the local dirt tracks. it equally pleases me and and freaks me out. best bike ever
The "Q" cams in the T100R matched the twin carbs, exhaust, and mechanically advanced duel points to produce pronounced burst in power from about 4,500 to 7,500. This made down-shifting and powering out of a corner a BLAST !
Still a Triumph Bike....designed in England.....built in a Brit factory overseas but with Brit supervision and management..made for a world wide market.....I am just glad the Brand is still thriving.
Very few motorcycles or cars are made in their country of origin anymore. If you want to spend more time fixing your Triumph then riding it, get the old generation bike, 1983 and older. Wanting more time riding then fixing, get the modern Triumph. I’ve owned both generations and will take the Hinckley Triumph anytime.
I love your videos almost as much as I love my T120 :) Keep up the good work, they really are excellent. I would like an original Bonneville and may get one someday. But this was my first bike and I don't have much time to tinker with an older bike as I tend to work 12+ hours a day. I just want to get on it and ride. I guess I'm exactly the type of person that Triumph are targeting the new Bonnevilles at.
Bart, what you also forget to mention was the incredible ability for the old british bikes for the mass transportation of oil, in this case, from the crankcase onto the ground. I even noticed a drip tray under one of your older bikes. I take it the new bikes don't do this?
I remember reading a Cycle World column (one of Peter Eagan's) where it talked about how physically big bikes have become compared to old ones. Even if the engine displacement was the same or close to the same. As you mentioned about your surprise about the heat that the Speed Twin put out when you rode it, I believe I remember that one of the reasons that bikes are bigger and heavier is from meeting emissions. And not just a direct thing like an added catalyst. Because of fuel mixture, and I think fuel composition being also different than what it used to be, that modern engines need extra girth to help dissipate the extra heat from fuel mixtures being leaner than what they could get away with. And this is despite having modern fuel injection and water cooling. So with heavier engines comes the need to support it with frames. And so on. So with water cooling versus engine fins, modern bikes do produce more heat. But they are also better at handling it with advancements in engine design, etc... So still better to be on a modern bike in the summer with traffic creeping at stop and go speeds.
I used to ride my old BSA spitfire downtown Toronto on a hot summer night. If it was a hot enough night the bike would quite often seize sitting at a red light. No problem, push it to side and let it sit for 20 or 30 minutes and away we’d go.
@@tsoliot5913 can't do away with all regulation. The environment back in the 70s was taking some pretty nasty hits just from dumping alone. Safety regulations have improved the sport of motorcycling. And you can't get around physics. High performance requires higher fuel consumption.
I don't know whether anyone else has mentioned why the vintage British bikes had their gear levers on the right. Over here in England and some other countries we drive on the left unlike the USA for instance, - so before the advent of affordable cars most people found the need to fit sidecars as their families got bigger. The gear lever being fitted on the right meant the footbrake lever was on the left. Larger double adult sidecars had their separate brake pedal laid alongside the bikes brake. Anyone who has driven a sidecar knows that when turning left (in the UK) a dab on the sidecar brake will aid the turn while a dab on the bikes brake starts the combination turning right. Obviously putting your foot over both pedals helps pull the whole outfit up in a straight line. It wasn't until the British bikes later years that they catered more for the Americans market. With regards weight, the older triumphs compared more with Japanese 250s. I always thought that they were very agile and nimble. Many modern bikes seem to have got a bit overweight, which isn't always a bad thing but its not always a good thing either.
I am in total agreement on weight. Ducati had full Desmo valves, steel frame, and body plastic with a v twin at far less weight. The XSR700 while styled different shows what using proper materials can do to weight. Also shows what you can do with less displacement on a parallel twin and still get amazing torque and performance. If they built a T100 styled bike with the XSR displacement weight and performance it would be even crazier sales then it has been.
The vintage Triumphs are easy to work on but unless you are a mechanic or dead serious about learning they're best left to experts because they require a high level of owner involvement. It was impressive how quickly they faded in the US, a few areas where they were popular for flat track like Ohio interestingly excepted. There are plenty for collectors these days because non-mechanic owners (who in those days only had magazines to go by and those had to kill advertiser yarbles) parked them in frustration and bought Japanese so they could ride instead of wrench. Not insult but observation. I collect vintage machines but like most collectors daily something considerably more reliable.
The early Harley Sportsters had the shifter on the right, too. The Norton Commandos, prior to the 1975 models, had the shifter on the right and they were upside-down. They shifted 1 up and 3 down. I'm pretty sure Triumph moved their shifters to the left in '75. My '77 Bonneville had it on the left.
A vintage Triumph is a thing of beauty. Modern Triumphs look fat and bulbous. They don't have the beautiful lines of the original. Thet are also loaded down with computerized safety and emissions garbage, and they do not have either the feel or sound of the REAL thing.
@@bartmotorcycle The 270 degree crank was introduced on the Bonnevilles in 2017 with the water cooled models. Previous modern classic Bonnevilles and Thruxtons (between 2002-2016) used water oil cooled engines with 360 degree cranks. My 2013 Thruxton uses an 865cc water and oil cooled 360 crank engine. The engine looks identical to the 2007 Bonneville pictured in your video. The tank is also the same size.
I have wanted a newer Bonneville with the 270/90 firing and smoothness. People rephase Yamaha XS650s to 277/83 timing be splitting the right side cylinder and move it three splines forward and have it pressed back together and spot welded. The camshaft has to be rephased also. And the ignition with a Hall effect needs to be installed to fire properly. The cool thing is that they look stock outwardly but are much smoother and can be tuned for more torque and a little more hp. A 750 big bore kit is relatively cheap. These bikes have a lot of charisma.
Royal Enfield produced almost the same bike from 1947 till 2008, which means yes, they had the break and gear shifter swapped from the conventional positions till then, and you can find them pretty cheap and readily available here in India. Kolkata (port city in India) police still uses those old bikes for patrolling.
One thing that you forgot to mention is that the 2007 Bonneville not only used carburetors, but also used an air cooled 865cc engine with a 360 degree crank like the old Triumph's. This engine was produced in 2005 up until 2017 when the water cooled 900 replaced it with it's different crank.
I wish I had a kick starter on my 2008 Bonneville. The US Bonneville models switched to fuel injection with the 2009 models. 2008 was the last year with carbs.
Triumph did gear switch to conform to American requirements, hence the workaround on the gear shift levers on the later Meriden Triumphs. Didn’t really help once Honda got on the scene. I’ve got a 750 Bonneville T-140V, 1982, one of the last and a 2016 T-120. I’ll take the reliability and smoothness of the T-120 but the old Bonny is just raw fun and nimble. The Hinkley Bonnevilles still feel quite aligned to the Meridens but generally with modern reliability and are smaller than the liquid cooled jobs. The T-120 won’t set the world on fire with 80hp but gets along smoothly with decent useable power. Thruxton R and Speed Twin, different story entirely.
The old Triumph Bonnie is an old Triumph Bonnie.....The new Triumph Bonnie is a new Triumph Bonnie. The old one would not be able to be sold new now. The new bike has to conform to Euro 5/6 regs....so needs a bigger motor to give some performance....the Euro 5/6 regs strangle them. Like the new model Mustang.....its the latest in the mustang range....and yes its very different to a 60s Mustang. You have to get your head around the fact that Triumph still produce a Bonnie.....and its a 2021 Bonnie.....its moved on. Yes I love the Old Bonnie.....I would love one.....but unfortunately would suit my old body...70. I dow own an old Brit bike saying that.
@Alfred Wedmore I agree with you, my 1980 Benelli 900 Sei produces 80bhp, exactly the same as a new 1200cc Bonneville. My Benelli has six small 151cc cylinders giving a rtotal capacity of 906cc. Six small cylinders are more efficient than two large ones.
@Alfred Wedmore Alfred.....my 900cc water cooled bonnie is very lightly stressed motor.....it gives huge torque rather than huge HP.....this also applies to the 1200cc engine.
What about foot peg placement? It seems to me that the new retro bikes have placed the foot pegs further back than they were on the late 1960s bikes. Am I right about this, or is it just my imagination?
Always remember it is the actual bike that brings you into the moment of time making the experience. Experiencing these moments later in time will only happen if on that bike again. Each are like you, always different of nature as it should be.
The Daytona 500 of the 50's/60's was a commuter bike for England. The large 650/750 was a bike that was basic and was able to get hot up parts and could move into café racer or club racing on the weekend. These were ton-up (over 100 mph) and not made to parade on flat straight American roads, they were for windy European and English roads and survive rough roads in the British former colonies such as New Zealand, Australia and popular in South America. These were expensive and were to be used and raced on the weekend. They had dreams of being at the Isle of Man TT. Todays bikes are not made for that market wanting to modify and strip the bike down to take off the weight, modify the head, different exhaust, be able to strip and repair it at the side of the road, understand the technology and make it faster and handle differently. It is all dumbed down and "safer", devoid of spirit and styled for cossetted riders wanting little bells and whistles and a toy for the garage as they can afford it. Not to be made dirty or get near damp conditions.
Triumph did swap the shifter to the left around 1975 for US regulations on the T140V to '85 .. possibly what killed off the A Series BSA's. I don't know if it helps but the clutch and front brake is always a constant for both so transmission / brakes form an X on the old ones and are the same side on modern bikes: X old / I I modern.
I disagree on the weight thing. I love the weight of my ‘21 T100. Its weight is so down low that you hardly feel it but you also don’t get blown around like light bike.
Cooling system /coolant, fork tube diameter/slider diameter, engine components, 2 extra gear ratios (4 more gears) , heavier duty gears for all ratios, heavier duty transmission main and countershafts, heavier duty primary drive, bigger heavier duty clutch, larger final drive chain and sprockets (?) Stiffer more rigid frame, 3 steel brake rotors, 2 steel hubs, 3 brake calipers, bigger (wider) tires with thicker tread area and sidewalls, beefier rear shocks, springs, and swingarm, larger capacity fuel tank (?)•wet weights were given which would include full tank, more engin oil capacity,(?), more instrumentation, electric starter, larger battery,, higher output charging system, and probably 5 times the weight in electrical components and wiring... All the things that make it a modern motorcycle with its modern reliability, reduced maintenance, stopping ability, handling, speed/acceleration, durability, fit and finish quality etc... are all things that add weight. Could it have been done in a manner that ended up 75 to 90 lbs lighter, certainly, possibly even 100 lbs or more lighter than what it turned out. But in doing so Triumph would have to either add dramatically to the cost or reduce the overall quality/durability/comfort/performance/reliability of the final product (lightweight components that are equal in strength, durability,, reliability etc... to the heavier version of those parts are inherently more expensive which is exactly why racing components tend to cost so much more than heavier street/production components ) and since the product was not designed to compete in t the Sportbike market (unlike the vintage Triumphs which were indeed intended to be high performance Sport oriented motorcycles that could with little modification be competitive in amateur racing classes and wth professional levels of modifications compete against the best/fastest bikes in the world) so essentially Triumph had to choose between making a high quality comfortable, safe, and attractive motorcycle that would be competitive in its market class in price, and rider impression while also making it a bike that will last for years being ridden on public ((Shitty ) roads by whatever level of rider skill and intelligence that it may encounter all at a competitive price point or stay true to the original Triumph Bonneville/Trophy/ lines and build them to be competitive in performance against other bikes in the same displacement sportbike class. (A tough thing to do with a Twin) and charge closer to Ducati level prices. They did what made economic sense. If it was cheap and easy to knock 75 to 90 lbs off the weight of a modern bike in this class of motorcycles you would see Sportsters that weighed in around 400 to 450 lbs but didn't cost anumore than they already do. Trust me, from my days working in Harleys R&D as a technician that worked with Engineering on a number of tests I can tell you engineers would love to unlock the formulato make lightweight bikes with all the same qualities as current bikes have without losing durability, safety etc... without increasing the production costs/consumer price, they would then be the geniuses they already think they are.
The Vintage bonneville's have beautiful looking fuel tanks that are rolled underneath, the newer bonnevilles have that cheep ugly pinch seemed fuel tank that completely cheapens the bike. I notice the scrambler 1200 have rolled fuel tanks so why not the newer bonnevilles. So Triumph, if you're listening and reading this get rid of those ugly fuel tanks.
I have a couple of motorcycles I have 2 triumphs I have a1977 bonerville t120 and a special edition model a1977 silver jubilee bonerville both bought that year silver jubilee has 2000 on the clock the t120 has 86.000 on the clock
In response to your musings about hand & right hand shifting. Federal law dictates the placement of the brakes, shift and clutch. I remember old timers talking about it when I worked in a bike shop back in the 1990s. I never met a vintage Brit bike enthusiast who did feel as you do.
Manufacturers cannot move the brake to the left hand side of the bike as having the brake on the right is a regulatory requirement. In the 1970s American legislation required that all brake controls be on the right hand side of the bike. Other than the British this was already the standard used by most other manufacturers, including the Japanese. All 1975 models onwards have the rear brake lever on the right side. I am not sure if there is a similar requirement to have the shifter on the left but there may be, even my DCT Honda has the "paddle shifters" on the left side of the bike albeit on the handlebar.
It wasn't only the British marques who had right hand gear shifter levers, up to 1975 the H-D Sportster had a right hand shifter lever, also many of the Italian marques like Laverda, Benelli, Aermacchi, Moto Morini, MV Agusta, etc had a right hand gear shifter too.
@@davidmacgregor5193 my comment was about the brakes being on the right not the shifter on the left, but yes, the foot shifter did swap at the same time as the rear brake lever (as far as I know and for obvious reasons). Thanks for the info.
that's tough as I haven't ridden them all. Nothing is going to have that old feeling, the big vibrations and loud exhaust. The modern Triumphs are just WAY too smooth to feel anything like an old triumph, but that's fine. Idk honestly
@@bartmotorcycle That’s very true the new motorcycles including the interceptor 650 are way too refined compared to the vintage,the closest I could get to the something modern with character was the new Norton Commando 961 .Hoping the new BSA gold star 650 has some character,Thanks for your opinion,Cool videos👍
@@JamesCouch777 Surely Harleys and Moto Guzzis have ample character without a doubt,and heavy ofcourse,but I think V7 Stone also great and comparatively lighter similar to the present Bonneville and interceptor.Thanks for your opinion 🥂
Until 1974 all Harley Davidson Sportsters were right foot shift as they were built to compete with British motorcycles. Harley Davidson Electra Glide etc were always left foot shift .
The Hinckley Bonnevilles were 790cc, then 865cc. The 60's Meriden Bonnies weighed about 383# dry & about 405# wet. I tried to recapture the joy & the soul of my '66 & '68 Bonnies when I got a 2017 T120. (494# dry) It was gorgeous & performed brilliantly, but too techy for me & didn't have that 'soul' factor. I sold it. So now am looking for a clean 865cc Hinckley T100 that may be the best of all worlds. If anyone has any wisdom to share about this plan, pls do...
If you're open to another model, the Kawasaki W800 is a sweet spot between simplicity and modernity if looking for something new (and the last to still use a 360 crank). I share the opinion that the Triumph actual generation of modern classics are brilliant, but too techy. Much more modern than classic in it. The 865cc Hinckley T100 is already becoming a classic in its own, I'll never sell my Thruxton that does nothing great, but is a blast every time that I ride it.
@Air cooled I didn't knew about it. The W800 have a low sales volume and is a bit more expensive so I would expect the better quality that Kawasaki can offer.
Try to compare the old Bonny with the Royal Enfield 650 Interceptor. The RE is perhaps the better modern interpretation of an old Triumph Bonneville than the modern classic models from Triumph!
Should better read: What have modern and old Triumphs in common? I remember very well, when John Bloor introduced the new water-cooled, fuel-injected Tripples in 1991. He always emphasized that the new Triumphs, made in the new Hinkley factory have absolutely nothing to do with the old (Meriden) stuff. And now: Triumph always evokes their old heritage ... With what - rolling computers, made in Thailand.
I've read too that when they initially started making bikes again they avoided the whole idea of heritage, as triumphs Demise was one of embarrassment, and then when this wave of retro motorcycles became so popular they started trying to evoke nostalgia. Idk it's all a bit pandering to me
@@bartmotorcycle Well, Triumphs had become so known for poor quality that caused it's demise, that it completely displaced their original heritage of being the bikes to get for performance and quality. Even for many decades for a car to be of British heritage was synonymous with a list of problems. So from a marketing standpoint, I can see why they distanced themselves from their "heritage". They needed to remove that from people's minds like the all female Ghost Busters remake. But as far as I'm concerned as a person who loves motorcycles, what Triumph has done for the sake of the industry as a whole since they've reintroduced themselves has really given me a good feeling to see them put the amount of genuine passion into providing a good product for people to enjoy. To me it's analogous to a musician who you can feel is really in to making his live performance such a memorable event for his audience.
@@brucegeange7082 I don't fault them for it. Harley doesn't bring up their AMF days. And you won't see Chrysler reminiscing about their K-car days. And despite Enfield's long history, it was helped by being thought of as a new brand and also by what brands like Triumph were doing. Enfield didn't stay nostalgic about the chunkiness of the original transmissions. Besides, what part of Triumph's history really is anything like their triples when they introduced the 955i and the Trophy. Two bikes I really liked.
The modern Triumphs are NOT real Triumphs, but just a bike using the same name, and trading off the brand or pedigree, or the nostalgia of the 1950s and 1960s bikes. The Modern Triumphs are designed for the current roads, endless traffic jams , pollution regulations, and yes they have better brakes. But just for a moment think about the total package!! They need much better brakes, because they are almost twice as heavy, and because the engine is so large they probably drink much more fuel too? As to the dark black engines, well of course they need to be black, black hides the fact that they have fake carbs, fake gearbox covers , no kickstart, and massive water cooled engines. The Modern day Triumph, whichever model, is about as close to the real thing, as a new Mini is the same size as the original Mini. Modern motor cycle design sucks, and now the "new BSA" have brought out a new Gold Star, again just a bike trying to evoke former glory, but just as bloated, heavy, water cooled , no kick start, fake Gold Star. If I had the money II would op for a nuts and bolts professional rebuild of an old Gold Star , or 1960's Bonneville with the following changes: Electronic ignition, Disc brakes and mirrors and that's it!! At least I would be riding the real thing, and not some overpowered, costly to buy and run, fake. So all they need to do at Triumphs, is to re-manufacture the old Triumph Bonneville, with some modern safety changes, as I stated, and literally make the same model as the 1962 -1965 , and they would sell like hot cakes!!
